header-logo header-logo

03 March 2016
Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No pay for McKenzie Friends

Legal profession welcomes ban on payment for controversial non-lawyers

Lawyers have welcomed proposals to ban McKenzie Friends from charging fees for their services.

The Judicial Executive Board (JEB) has proposed substantial reform for McKenzie Friends, non-lawyers who offer assistance or appear as advocates on behalf of litigants in person. The number of both litigants in person and McKenzie Friends has risen sharply in number in recent years, partly due to cutbacks in legal aid.

JEB proposes replacing existing guidance with rules of court, introducing a code of conduct requiring McKenzie Friends to acknowledge a duty to the court and a duty of confidentiality, and prohibiting them from charging fees.

It also hopes to provide further protection for litigants in person by requiring them to inform courts in advance that they intend to use a McKenzie Friend and providing information about the Friend.

Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, Chairman of the Bar, says: “McKenzie friends are unregulated, uninsured and mostly unqualified, and the Bar Council agrees that they should not be allowed to charge people for legal services.

“An unfortunate consequence of legal aid cuts is that paid McKenzie Friends, who are not regulated or insured and are rarely legally qualified, have been charging up to £90 an hour to represent people in court. We have already seen one McKenzie friend banned from court for intimidating witnesses and legal representatives, and another jailed for defrauding his clients.

“Unlike McKenzie Friends, barristers and solicitors are regulated and owe a duty to the court and in this way they serve the interests of justice and the public interest. Those who instruct a paid McKenzie Friend would be better off employing a junior barrister or solicitor. This is often more cost effective and will always represent better value for money.”

The proposals follow the recommendations of a judicial working group, chaired by Mrs Justice Asplin. JEB also intends to produce a plain language guide for litigants in person and McKenzie Friends.

Comments to the consultation, Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends, should be submitted by 19 May to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.

Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll